AMZN Amazon.com Inc

By Christopher Mims 

If the partisans of America's elected leadership seem to agree on almost nothing these days, Wednesday's Big Tech antitrust hearing was stark evidence that they do share one common target.

Despite what were sometimes cantankerous and politically charged exchanges between Republican and Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, perhaps the most interesting line of the hearing came at the start, when Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.), chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee, recounted a comment he attributed to Rep. Ken Buck (R., Colo.): "This is the most bipartisan effort I've been involved with in 5 1/2 years in Congress."

What followed was a bipartisan roast of the heads of Apple Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Google parent Alphabet Inc. and Facebook Inc. -- four of the five most valuable companies in America. It was a pandemic-era spectacle of scrutiny that evoked past congressional grilling of the captains of other industries near the peaks of their powers, from tobacco and finance to energy and steel -- only this time, with the CEOs in virtual attendance via videoconference software.

A rare moment of united purpose from a body otherwise bitterly at odds over so many other issues, the hearing showed that the effort to regulate tech companies is becoming a big-tent issue, and possibly a place for compromise between conservatives worried largely about constraints on their speech, and liberals worried primarily about constraints on competition.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, opened his comments with a broadside comparing large tech companies to the railroad-owning robber barons of old. He said that the four companies own the digital rails on which countless other firms depend, and that his committee would follow "in this proud tradition" of determining whether current antitrust law is up to the task of addressing the presumed harms of these companies.

Then the Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), declared, "I'll just cut to the chase: Big Tech's out to get conservatives."

The common thread was the threat of outsize market power, and it wove its way through more than five hours of testimony even as the questions swung between the pet causes of the members.

While none of the CEOs -- who included two of the world's richest men, Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg -- seemed to break much of a sweat, they clearly weren't comfortable either.

They parried a combination of specific, even wonkish questions about instances of allegedly anticompetitive behavior -- some based on internal documents that hadn't previously been made public -- and accusations of partisan bias in how they treat speech on their platforms.

The CEOs disputed the claims, argued that their products are helpful and well-liked, and occasionally promised to get more information. They remained polite, even when frequently cut off by interrogators trying to squeeze more questions into limited time.

Mr. Zuckerberg was asked repeatedly about Facebook's 2012 acquisition of Instagram and the way its then-CEO perceived his approach as a threat to either sell or be destroyed. Mr. Zuckerberg pointed out that Facebook's acquisition and investment had led to success for Instagram that wasn't guaranteed when the deal was made.

Mr. Bezos was grilled about a Wall Street Journal article from April describing Amazon's use of data from its platform to compete against the independent sellers on the platform that it calls partners. He said Amazon values those merchants and that Amazon is still investigating the Journal's findings.

Alphabet's Sundar Pichai was probed on Google's dominance of the online ad marketplace, and asked about a specific accusation that Google had collaborated with the Chinese government in a way that potentially constituted treason. He strongly denied that accusation, and said he had cleared up the matter in a meeting with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Apple's Tim Cook, who received the least attention of the group, was questioned several times about its control of its own app store and the impact on rival app developers and on consumers. He argued that Apple has consistently applied its rules across its app store, and has eliminated fees from some categories of apps and services.

There were also suggestions of potential interference in the 2016 election, both on and by platforms, and both for and against the election of President Trump, and questions about why the platforms should have the power to remove a video claiming hydroxychloroquine was a cure for Covid-19. (Short answer from Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Pichai: They follow the guidelines of health authorities and remove anything that could lead to imminent harm; in June, the Food and Drug Administration revoked its emergency-use approval of the drug.)

At times, it was as if separate hearings were occurring, with representatives, more or less divided along party lines, behaving like a boat full of oarsmen who can't decide in which direction to row.

But they kept circling back to the idea that without checks on the power of these companies, now collectively worth nearly $5 trillion, the tech giants could abuse it.

At one point, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R.-Fla.) closed a statement in which he accused Google of being deceptive in saying that it doesn't manually tune its search results ( a Journal investigation has found that in some ways it does), by saying that the company could suppress or favor speech, and interfere in a U.S. election, through its "market dominance."

There is no clear playbook for how to proceed -- even many of those who do believe that antitrust action is required against Big Tech say that the current laws and traditional notions of consumer harm aren't well-suited for companies whose popular products are often inexpensive or even free.

But the hearing's consistent hostility offers a signal of common purpose to the groups that are actively pursuing some sort of antitrust action against one or more of these companies: the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission, and an assortment of state attorneys general.

And, if past is prologue, that type of unified anger could be a prelude to action by Congress itself. In April 2009, after the financial crisis, seven bank CEOs were hauled in front of Congress, and in July 2010 it passed the Dodd-Frank Act, which mandated a litany of changes to Wall Street business practices and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

All of this takes place against a backdrop of a global pandemic -- one that is only strengthening the power of Big Tech -- and a presidential campaign. Here too, the unusual concordance between members of both parties stands out.

One issue on which both Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and Mr. Trump agree is that something must be done to rein in Big Tech. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump tweeted, "If Congress doesn't bring fairness to Big Tech...I will do it myself with Executive Orders." Mr. Biden has signaled similar aggressive intentions, saying at the start of his presidential campaign, in May 2019, that breaking up Big Tech companies like Facebook is "something we should take a really hard look at."

If substantial action against some or all of these companies finally happens, this hearing may mark an unlikely watershed -- a moment of relative unity in an era of division that showed America's elected leaders are ready to rein in Big Tech.

Write to Christopher Mims at christopher.mims@wsj.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

July 30, 2020 10:32 ET (14:32 GMT)

Amazon.com (NASDAQ:AMZN)
Historical Stock Chart
Von Mär 2024 bis Apr 2024

Amazon.com (NASDAQ:AMZN)
Historical Stock Chart
Von Apr 2023 bis Apr 2024